Cross-Species Approach To Personality 1163

Cross-Species Approach To Personality 1163

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions

Cross-Species Approach To Personality 1163

Study 1: Internal Consistency and Consensus

Method

Participants. Seventy-eight owners (67% women) rated their own

personality and their dog’s (50% female) personality, and returned their

judgments by mail; peer informants rated the personality of owners and

dogs and returned their judgments directly to the experimenter by mail. The

owners reported the age and sex of the dogs.

Personality judgments. Judgments of humans were made using a standard FFM instrument, the Big Five Inventory (BFI; see John & Srivastava,

1999). For the dog judgments, the BFI was adapted slightly. Two experts

reviewed each item on the human instrument to determine whether it was

applicable to canine targets. Most items could be applied to canine behavior after minor editing. Care was taken to retain the original sense of the

items. For example, the item “Is original, comes up with new ideas” was

changed to “Is original, comes up with new ways of doing things.” Only

one item (“Has few artistic interests”) could not be translated to a canine

form, and was therefore omitted from both human and canine BFIs (the

canine version of the BFI is available from the authors).

The judges indicated the degree to which each item was characteristic of

the target (dog or human owner) on a scale ranging from 1 (disagree

strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). There were eight items for Extraversion/

Energy (e.g., “Is full of energy”), nine for Agreeableness/Affection (e.g.,

“Is cooperative”), eight for Neuroticism/Emotional Reactivity (e.g., “Can

be tense”), and nine for Openness/Intelligence (e.g., “Is curious about

many different things”). The variances did not vary across human and dog

targets, with mean standard deviations of .76 and .78, respectively.

Results and Discussion

Internal consistency: Are personality judgments of dogs consistent across items? We computed Cronbach’s coefficient alpha

across the items on each BFI scale, and these values are shown in

Table 1 for both human and dog targets. For humans, the alphas

averaged .82 for the owners’ self-judgments and .85 for the peers’

judgments of the owners; these values are similar to previous

research. How do the values for the dogs compare? The mean

alpha was .83 for the owners’ judgments of their dogs and .82 for

the peers’ judgments of the same dogs—values quite similar to

those for human targets even though the BFI was derived in

research on humans. In short, the personality judgments showed

substantial internal consistencies for both species.

Consensus: Do owner judgments agree with peer judgments?

To assess consensus we computed unit-weighted scale scores for

humans and dogs for each of the four BFI dimensions. To provide

a human comparison standard, Table 1 shows the correlations

between the owners’ self-judgments and how they were judged by

the peer informants. These human consensus correlations were

strong, averaging .55, and quite similar to previous research on

human personality (e.g., Funder, Kolar, & Blackman, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1987). What about the dogs? Table 1 shows that the

four consensus correlations for canine targets were all significant

and averaged .62. That is, they were substantial in size and at least

as large as those for human targets, suggesting that owners can

judge the personality of their dogs with substantial consensus.

Could these substantial consensus correlations be due to nonbehavioral characteristics of the animals? That is, one possible

artifactual explanation for consensus is that instead of making

judgments on the basis of behavior, informants might have made

judgments on the basis of such nonbehavioral variables as the

dogs’ sex or age. To find out, we estimated consensus using partial

correlations. The partial correlations were essentially unchanged;

averaged across the BFI scales, the partial consensus correlations

controlling for sex and age were .62 and .61, respectively—

virtually the same as the mean zero-order correlation of .62. Thus,

consensus cannot be attributed simply to judges relying on sex or

age stereotypes about dogs.

A second possible explanation for the consensus findings is that

judges did not actually discriminate among the FFM dimensions

but formed only a single impression (such as like–dislike), and

then made their BFI judgments on some inferential basis (e.g.,

Borkenau, 1992). If so, each of the four dimensions should be

highly correlated with the other three. Thus, when controlling for

the discriminant correlations by partialing out the other three BFI

scales, there should be no unique consensus left—the partial consensus correlations should all no longer be significant and approach zero. This was not the case, however, as the partial consensus correlations in Table 1 show. They averaged .56 for dogs,

as compared with .52 for humans. Thus, our consensus findings

cannot be explained by the intercorrelations among the BFI scales,

neither for the humans nor the dogs.

Study 2: Correspondence

Probably the most important evidence for accuracy is whether

personality judgments can predict external criteria. In the case of

personality traits, the definitive test is whether personality judgTable 1

Internal Consistency and Consensus: Personality Judgments of Humans and Dogs

BFI scales

Internal consistency

(Cronbach’s )

Consensus

(owner–peer correlations)

Owner judgments of Peer judgments of Target judged

Human (self) Own dog Human owner Dog Human owner Dog

Extraversion .83 .77 .84 .81 .66* (.61*) .76* (.76*)

Agreeableness .81 .84 .84 .83 .47* (.43*) .55* (.43*)

Neuroticism .80 .89 .86 .86 .45* (.43*) .57* (.51*)

Openness .83 .81 .84 .75 .58* (.60*) .55* (.47*)

M .82 .83 .85 .82 .55* (.52*) .62* (.56*)

Note. Numbers shown in parentheses are partial correlations remaining after all discriminant correlations have

been controlled. BFI  Big Five Inventory.

* p  .05.

1164 GOSLING, KWAN, AND JOHN

ments predict behaviors. How should such behaviors be assessed?

Funder, Furr, and Colvin (2000) observed that most measures of

social behavior in psychological research have two major limitations: (a) from an ecological point of view, the behaviors examined

are often intrinsically uninteresting (e.g., response latencies to

stimuli), and (b) measures typically focus on an extremely small

number (usually just one) of the many specific behaviors an

individual actually emits. Thus, Funder et al. (2000) recommended

focusing on behavioral assessments that are “psychologically

meaningful and relevant to individuals in behavioral interaction,

but that would also require a minimum of subjective interpretation

on the part of the coders” (p. 454). This midlevel analysis is above

that of narrow molecular units but below the level of broad

cross-situational behavioral trends. Thus, in the context of the

behavior of dogs, rather than attempting to measure the frequency

of head shakes, the velocity of a scamper, or the amplitude of a tail

wag, a midlevel approach would require that observers rate, for

example, whether a dog performed shy behaviors or nervous

behaviors in a specific situation.

The midlevel approach is well-suited to the study of dog behavior because it permits the measurement of situation-specific behaviors that are a priori related to the traits under study while

retaining the breadth that allows multiple traits to be assessed in a

naturalistic setting. We adopted this approach in the present research because we wanted to capture behavior relevant to all four

of the trait domains we had examined in Study 1. Thus, correspondence in this study reflects the degree to which the owners’

personality judgments of their dogs correspond with trait-relevant

dog behaviors rated by independent observers in a field-testing

session.

Method

Taken together, these studies show that personality traits can be

judged in dogs with impressive levels of accuracy. Our twospecies comparative approach made it possible for the first time to

interpret the animal findings in direct comparison with findings

based on human participants. We were able to show that the

consistency, consensus, and correspondence of dog personality

judgments were not only significant but also as substantial in size

as those found for humans.

By taking an integrative approach to issues examined previously

in piecemeal fashion, this research represents a departure from the

past. As such, we suggest that this research can provide a blueprint,

or prototype, for conducting species-comparative studies of perTable 3

Correlations Between Photo Ratings and Field Behavior Ratings

and Correspondence Correlations After Controlling for

Appearance Stereotypes

BFI scales

Correlation between

photo-based ratings

and behavior ratings

Correspondence

controlling

for appearance

Extraversion .17 .28*

Agreeableness .20* .33*

Neuroticism .30* .21*

Openness .04 .23*

M .18 .26*

Note. Correspondence correlations are partial correlations between the

owners’ judgments of their dogs and the field-test behavior ratings from

Study 2, controlling for the appearance-based impressions from the photo

judges. BFI  Big Five Inventory.

* p  .05.

1166 GOSLING, KWAN, AND JOHN

sonality. Specifically, this research examined a comprehensive

array of dog-relevant personality dimensions, thus permitting comparisons across traits, and tests of discriminant validity with partial

correlations. In addition, we included controls for nonbehavioral

variables, such as sex and age, that could have influenced the

judgments. We used multiple indicators to measure each dimension, allowing us to test the internal consistency of the judgments.

Moreover, we evaluated personality judgments according to a

comprehensive set of accuracy criteria. To provide a benchmark

against which the accuracy criteria could be tested, we implemented the cross-species comparative approach, simultaneously

examining two species, including the species (humans) and personality trait model (the FFM) upon which most research on

personality judgment so far has been based. Finally, in an additional study, we controlled for the potentially biasing effects of

breed and appearance-based stereotypes on personality judgments

of individual dogs.

The findings emerging from this research are important because

they suggest a conclusion not widely considered by either humanpersonality or animal-behavior researchers: Differences in personality traits do exist and can be measured in animals. This conclusion also converges with another newly emerging line of research

indicating that behavioral traits in nonhuman animals are heritable

(e.g., Weiss, King, & Enns, 2002). The time has come, we suggest,

to extend Darwin’s argument of cross-species continuity to the

domain of personality. Below we discuss some directions that such

extensions might take.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our findings suggest that the personality judgment approach can

be applied successfully to nonhuman populations. Nonetheless, the

boundary conditions of these effects, obtained here in a sample of

domestic dogs and their owners in an urban dog park, still need to

be established. Future research should examine whether these

findings generalize to other contexts and populations. One extension would be to conduct studies with seeing-eye dogs or bombsniffing dogs whose personalities could be judged by their trainers

or handlers. Other types of criteria could then be used to evaluate

the correspondence criterion of judgmental accuracy, such as performance in standardized working-dog trials or subsequent on-thejob success as a working dog (e.g., Goddard & Beilharz, 1983;

Slabbert & Odendaal, 1999; Svartberg, 2002). Such work is important because it could open the way for obtaining judgments by

trainers and handlers in controlled studies of dog personality.

Even more important from the perspective of the cross-species

comparative approach, this work needs to be extended to other

species. There is some encouraging evidence that the findings for

personality judgments of dogs may indeed generalize to some

other species of mammals, at least on some accuracy criteria. In

terms of correspondence, for example, the pioneering studies of

Stevenson-Hinde (e.g., 1983) found that personality judgments of

rhesus monkeys (e.g., on aggressiveness) corresponded with behavior observed in specific situations. In terms of consensus, a

study of spotted hyenas showed consensus for traits related to four

of the human FFM, such as active, aggressive, fearful, and imaginative (Gosling, 1998).

An additional limitation of the present work was our reliance on

the midlevel assessment of behaviors (Funder et al., 2000), in

which we used behavior ratings rather than detailed codings or

frequency counts of specific acts. Our multidimensional approach

necessitated the use of these midlevel assessments because finegrained recordings of behaviors are extremely time-consuming and

thus would have been prohibitive in a study of more than a few

traits. Nonetheless, future studies should examine other kinds of

correspondence criteria. Work in ethology suggests that naturalistic observation and coding techniques may be used to assess

correspondence in nonhuman animals. For example, in piglets,

behavioral records of vocalizations, nose contacts, and location in

the pen can serve as behavioral markers for a personality dimension akin to human sociability (Forkman, Furuhaug, & Jensen,

1995). Studies of these new species and new criteria should be a

top priority for the next generation of studies.

Implications and Conclusions

Broadly, this first cross-species personality study represents a

necessary and fundamental step toward bridging the gap between

personality and animal research. To illustrate the benefits of a

comparative approach to personality, we briefly consider its potential impact on personality research in genetics and development.

Progress in personality-assessment procedures for nonhumans

opens the way for new interdisciplinary partnerships between

genetics and personality researchers. Although genetic studies on

humans are essential, animal-personality research provides an avenue of research that offers important advantages (Gershenfeld &

Paul, 1998). Compared with humans, many laboratory animals

have brief intergenerational periods and are inexpensive to maintain. More extensive and intrusive manipulations are possible in

studies of animals than would be permitted with humans, so animal

studies could be used to test specific hypotheses derived from

human research. In addition, transgenic methods and new cloning

techniques (e.g., Wakayama, Perry, Zuccotti, Johnson, & Yanagimachi, 1998; Wilmut, Schnieke, McWhir, Kind, & Campbell,

1997) could provide novel opportunities for animal research to

further our understanding of the genetic influences on personality

(Flint et al., 1995). Among the many possibilities, one can foresee

expanded twin studies in which, instead of using pairs of identical

human twins, a large number of genetically identical cloned or

inbred animals are raised in systematically varied environments to

examine the interaction of genetic and environmental influences

on personality. The present findings suggest that personality judgments can play a part in such studies.

The present findings also bode well for animal studies of personality change. Typically, the most useful information on personality change is derived from longitudinal studies. In some respects,

animal studies provide an ideal situation in which to investigate

personality development. Many captive animals are observed almost every day of their lives and biological, environmental, and

social events that are hypothesized to influence personality change

can be recorded, or even manipulated experimentally, to test

hypotheses about environmental influences. For example, crossfostering studies in rhesus monkeys have already shown that

infants’ responses to separation from their foster mothers is best

predicted from their inherited levels of emotional reactivity, rather

than from their foster mother’s level of reactivity or care-taking

style (Suomi, 1999).

CROSS-SPECIES APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 1167

In sum, animal studies provide unique opportunities to elucidate

the dynamic interaction of biological, genetic, and environmental

effects on personality, and to study personality change, links

between personality and health, and even processes in personality

perception. The use of accurate personality judgments by owners,

handlers, and observers would make collecting animal personality

data so much less cumbersome and time-consuming, thus opening

up research opportunities with vast potential. Moreover, the

present evidence for the existence of personality traits in mammals

paves the way for personality researchers to incorporate animal

studies into their research programs, and for animal researchers to

include personality constructs in their studies. Thus, the present

approach should help enrich both personality and animal research,

and will lay the groundwork for fruitful collaborations between the

two disciplines. Indeed, as our opening quote suggests, even i

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow

 

n

animals, personality goes a long way.

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!